While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

There's quite a bit of considerations to take. For one, Mayans and any other conquered peoples had a form of religion. So in any conquering scenario, either it's a case of an evil force conquering another evil force, or one religious group simply exploiting another. The latter case suggests that religion itself is not the problem, but a particular group exploiting religion. Religion, like science, is not a personality. I don't think you disrespect science just because some have placed a pygmy in a zoo, and aborigines in State Fairs in the name of science.

Secondly, I don't think you're really being demanded to respect religion. As far as I'm concerned, along with most religious Americans, your level of respect is entirely your affair.

However.......a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because some atheists don't respect religion does not mean a particular religious statue has to come down in a given public location, a monumental cross in a historic site has to come down, a public school teacher has to refrain from wearing a Christian t-shirt at school etc., just because some atheists are offended.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

How do you define religion? Religion is "a worldview that requires faith of some sort in something or someone to bridge the gaps in human knowledge of the spiritual realm" No one religion claims to have all the answers, but what makes atheism not a religion? Do you "believe" there is no God? the very word believe implies that it is a belief, but atheists won't say that the believe in any deity. Atheism requires just as much faith as other religions, but they want to be exempt from the fact that their "beliefs" aren't a "religion". Do you believe there is no God? then we have a problem

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

There's quite a bit of considerations to take. For one, Mayans and any other conquered peoples had a form of religion. So in any conquering scenario, either it's a case of an evil force conquering another evil force, or one religious group simply exploiting another. The latter case suggests that religion itself is not the problem, but a particular group exploiting religion. Religion, like science, is not a personality. I don't think you disrespect science just because some have placed a pygmy in a zoo, and aborigines in State Fairs in the name of science.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you, to a degree. The military force of the Spanish conquerors considered themselves to be in the service of gawd himself, via the church. The symbol of the cross was emblazonment on their weapons and armor. The very reason for the destruction of the Mayan culture's documentation was completely religious. It was RELIGIOUS belief that prompted the destruction of some of the most grievous destruction of knowledge and information ever lost... Did you know that the Mayans were actually using cement a couple of hundred years before the Romans? What gems were destroyed, because of ignorance spawned by religious dogma?

Secondly, I don't think you're really being demanded to respect religion. As far as I'm concerned, along with most religious Americans, your level of respect is entirely your affair.

It is a demand, in the cultural taboo that is associated with speaking ill of religion... Religious people very much expect that their religion is not to be criticized or ridiculed, simply because it's faith. It's an expectation, put forth through cultural "norms." Yes, the religious do demand it.

However.......a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because some atheists don't respect religion does not mean a particular religious statue has to come down in a given public location, a monumental cross in a historic site has to come down, a public school teacher has to refrain from wearing a Christian t-shirt at school etc., just because some atheists are offended.

I'm not asking to have religious icons taken down (though I would prefer it, personally). I can ignore something like that. I'm talking about attempting to dictate how I am and am not permitted to speak of religion, specifically BECAUSE it is religion.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

How do you define religion? Religion is "a worldview that requires faith of some sort in something or someone to bridge the gaps in human knowledge of the spiritual realm" No one religion claims to have all the answers, but what makes atheism not a religion? Do you "believe" there is no God? the very word believe implies that it is a belief, but atheists won't say that the believe in any deity. Atheism requires just as much faith as other religions, but they want to be exempt from the fact that their "beliefs" aren't a "religion". Do you believe there is no God? then we have a problem

I define religion as any belief system centralized on a deity, with doctrines, ceremonies, and traditions all centered on worship of that deity. ALL religions claim to have the "answer." There is no "gap in human knowledge," because there is no "spiritual realm." The only claims of a "spiritual realm" that have ever been made were made by humans. The "spiritual realm" is a human invention.

What makes atheism "not a religion" is the fact that it is not a religion. No deity, no religion. See how that works?

I am agnostic. I don't have a belief, one way or the other, about whether or not a gawd exists. I do believe that all those that man has ever invented are simply inventions. No gawd has ever made itself unquestionably known. It is only humans that claim knowledge of any gawd. Atheism does not require faith but, rather, is a complete LACK of faith. Further, if you are going to make atheism a religion, then I'm joining, and I want the same tax exemption that stinking religion receives.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

How do you define religion? Religion is "a worldview that requires faith of some sort in something or someone to bridge the gaps in human knowledge of the spiritual realm" No one religion claims to have all the answers, but what makes atheism not a religion? Do you "believe" there is no God? the very word believe implies that it is a belief, but atheists won't say that the believe in any deity. Atheism requires just as much faith as other religions, but they want to be exempt from the fact that their "beliefs" aren't a "religion". Do you believe there is no God? then we have a problem

I define religion as any belief system centralized on a deity, with doctrines, ceremonies, and traditions all centered on worship of that deity. ALL religions claim to have the "answer." There is no "gap in human knowledge," because there is no "spiritual realm." The only claims of a "spiritual realm" that have ever been made were made by humans. The "spiritual realm" is a human invention.

What makes atheism "not a religion" is the fact that it is not a religion. No deity, no religion. See how that works?

I am agnostic. I don't have a belief, one way or the other, about whether or not a gawd exists. I do believe that all those that man has ever invented are simply inventions. No gawd has ever made itself unquestionably known. It is only humans that claim knowledge of any gawd. Atheism does not require faith but, rather, is a complete LACK of faith. Further, if you are going to make atheism a religion, then I'm joining, and I want the same tax exemption that stinking religion receives.

The purpose of a deity is to rule over us. Deity's do what they please without need to answer why. So by that definition, by saying that atheism has no god you are correct. it has millions of gods. each atheist is his own god. he makes himself the one with the answers, the one that doesn't have to answer questions why. he rules over himself without the need to strive to be like anyone else. you are believing in yourself, and making yourself your own deity. is morality subjective? I guess youre saying that it is, right? with your worldview with no "god" over you you decide what is right? if that's true, why are things evil and wrong? why is it considered wrong to kill? do you believe in objective or subjective morality?

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

Another "shame on you religious people for what your ancestors did" thread. By this logic Germans should not receive any common courtesies because their ancestors were Nazis.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

How do you define religion? Religion is "a worldview that requires faith of some sort in something or someone to bridge the gaps in human knowledge of the spiritual realm" No one religion claims to have all the answers, but what makes atheism not a religion? Do you "believe" there is no God? the very word believe implies that it is a belief, but atheists won't say that the believe in any deity. Atheism requires just as much faith as other religions, but they want to be exempt from the fact that their "beliefs" aren't a "religion". Do you believe there is no God? then we have a problem

I define religion as any belief system centralized on a deity, with doctrines, ceremonies, and traditions all centered on worship of that deity. ALL religions claim to have the "answer." There is no "gap in human knowledge," because there is no "spiritual realm." The only claims of a "spiritual realm" that have ever been made were made by humans. The "spiritual realm" is a human invention.

What makes atheism "not a religion" is the fact that it is not a religion. No deity, no religion. See how that works?

I am agnostic. I don't have a belief, one way or the other, about whether or not a gawd exists. I do believe that all those that man has ever invented are simply inventions. No gawd has ever made itself unquestionably known. It is only humans that claim knowledge of any gawd. Atheism does not require faith but, rather, is a complete LACK of faith. Further, if you are going to make atheism a religion, then I'm joining, and I want the same tax exemption that stinking religion receives.

You are right to an extent: atheism is not a religion.However, whenever it becomes the goal of atheists to eradicate religion (that is, they become "active" or "militant" atheists) they become capable of committing atrocities in the name of anti-religious beliefs in the same way that religious people have committed atrocities in the name of their religious beliefs.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

I personally don't think you owe people of religion courtesy of respect. Personally, my only quip would be anyone violating my personal religious rights in any way. Other than that, you can hold whatever opinion you want.

There's quite a bit of considerations to take. For one, Mayans and any other conquered peoples had a form of religion. So in any conquering scenario, either it's a case of an evil force conquering another evil force, or one religious group simply exploiting another. The latter case suggests that religion itself is not the problem, but a particular group exploiting religion. Religion, like science, is not a personality. I don't think you disrespect science just because some have placed a pygmy in a zoo, and aborigines in State Fairs in the name of science.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you, to a degree. The military force of the Spanish conquerors considered themselves to be in the service of gawd himself, via the church. The symbol of the cross was emblazonment on their weapons and armor. The very reason for the destruction of the Mayan culture's documentation was completely religious. It was RELIGIOUS belief that prompted the destruction of some of the most grievous destruction of knowledge and information ever lost... Did you know that the Mayans were actually using cement a couple of hundred years before the Romans? What gems were destroyed, because of ignorance spawned by religious dogma?

The initial introduction of Christianity to the outside world (from Israel) went basically 2 two directions. They went into both Europe and Asia. The first missionaries did not politically promote the Gospel message which does not promote political empiricism. In Europe Christianity eventually became a law. In Asia, it did not. The Gospel was presented, and either embraced or rejected. Today we know that there are enclaves of historical relatively small and peaceful Christian communities throughout Asia. So the Gospel/Bible message itself could not be a catalyst for danger.

As far as Mayan culture being destroyed, yes that from my standpoint is a shame. Anything from history being destroyed is a shame, even more so when done on purpose. And this same thing has happened in anti-theistic societies like China. There is a lot of artifacts that have been destroyed because they were associated with religion. And I admit, although I'm not a Buddhist, Buddhist artifacts in Asian nations are absolutely spectacular.

The church, historically in Asia (the enclaves I referred to) has not been violently destructive.

But I'm just not that clear as to what you are objecting to. Terms like "it acts a though" are not very clear terms.

Secondly, I don't think you're really being demanded to respect religion. As far as I'm concerned, along with most religious Americans, your level of respect is entirely your affair.

It is a demand, in the cultural taboo that is associated with speaking ill of religion... Religious people very much expect that their religion is not to be criticized or ridiculed, simply because it's faith. It's an expectation, put forth through cultural "norms." Yes, the religious do demand it.

Religion is not a personality, so it obviously can't feel. It would seem to me that you have more of a problem with individual personalities. Like someone(s) coming across as arrogant.

When you take people on an individual basis, sentiment is going to vary just as it does with atheists (some demand removal of Christian artifacts, some don't, etc.). You might at times are going to be around someone who is going to ask you not to take the name of the Lord in vain when you're around them for instance. But many are not. Most Christians you run into on a daily basis, you probably don't even know they are Christians. That might vary depending on what region of the country you're in. Obviously if you visit the Amish country the dynamics will be different than if you're in Greenwich Village.

However.......a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because some atheists don't respect religion does not mean a particular religious statue has to come down in a given public location, a monumental cross in a historic site has to come down, a public school teacher has to refrain from wearing a Christian t-shirt at school etc., just because some atheists are offended.

I'm not asking to have religious icons taken down (though I would prefer it, personally). I can ignore something like that. I'm talking about attempting to dictate how I am and am not permitted to speak of religion, specifically BECAUSE it is religion.

I'm curious as to what, when, how this situation plays out. But this follows along the path of my earlier point that we're inevitably dealing with different personalities. How one religious person acts will differ from another, just like atheists.

Religion not being a personality is not telling us people who adhere to a religion anything.

The purpose of a deity is to rule over us. Deity's do what they please without need to answer why.

That would be an accurate statement, if you could demonstrate that there is actually a deity that DOES exist.

So by that definition, by saying that atheism has no god you are correct. it has millions of gods. each atheist is his own god. he makes himself the one with the answers, the one that doesn't have to answer questions why.

I know you would love to condemn those of us who don't accept your deities with such an "accusation," but it's not a matter of being any ultimate arbiter of anything. Reason and reality are the ultimate arbiters of that which is true/false, accurate/inaccurate, right/wrong, etc. The human is responsible ONLY for recognizing the reality, not determining it.

he rules over himself without the need to strive to be like anyone else. you are believing in yourself, and making yourself your own deity. is morality subjective? I guess youre saying that it is, right?

Yes, morality is subjective. Anything that is objective:1) Never changes2) Does not require human validation.

with your worldview with no "god" over you you decide what is right?

I decide whether or not I agree with it. Given that I don't have any authority over anyone, I am also subject to the laws everyone else has to follow. This is why I speak out on forums. I don't want any more stupid religions legislating any more of their "morality."

if that's true, why are things evil and wrong? why is it considered wrong to kill? do you believe in objective or subjective morality?

I believe in subjective morality. If you claim otherwise, please state the objective morals that exist, and how they are objectively wrong. I have my views as to WHY some things are inherently evil/wrong. If you disagree with me that killing is wrong, please share with me your thoughts and reasons.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

Another "shame on you religious people for what your ancestors did" thread. By this logic Germans should not receive any common courtesies because their ancestors were Nazis.

Not at all. What religious ancestors did would still be happening today, had power not been taken away from the clergy. The clergy would happily step right back into the role of being "the last word" truth, law, and punishment. This is a thread on "How do you justify/reconcile your belief that your religion is exempt from ridicule?" What makes you think that a religion actually deserves "respect?"

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

At 10/8/2014 4:22:33 PM, irreverent_god wrote:While I didn't give this forum, specifically, any thought, I did give religion a few thoughts, while on vacation in Central America (I visited Roatan, Belize, and Cozumel). These countries are HEAVILY infected with catholicism. Such was the result of Spanish Conquistadores (conquerors), and much of the wealth of the land was plundered, by force, in the name of the church. European sailors came to this hemisphere and, seeing people of less advanced war technology, decided to simply take, by force, that which they wanted. Furthermore, I found out that the Spanish, being catholic, also burned the vast majority of the written culture of the Mayan people, because their books had serpents on them. The church equated the serpent (snake) with evil, whereas the Mayan culture equated it with ignorance. A question entered my mind, as a result...

The church, historically, has been violently destructive with respect to anything that stood between it, and the proliferation of their gawd and their "message" across any and every land it touched. It has destroyed or, at the very least, tainted every culture it has ever touched. At the very same time, out of its other face, religion always insists that it should be "respected." Religion feels as though those of us who reject their ideas and disbelieve their claims and assertions should still be "respectful." It acts as though it has the inherent right to be free of ridicule and derision, despite the enormity of its destructive impact throughout history and to the present. This, for me, raises the following question:

How is it that religion feels that we (agnostics and atheists) owe religion the "courtesy" of respect and withholding our derision, but still continues to practice its deception undeterred by reason and justice? Why do the religious feel that we unbelievers owe any respect to a belief system that has caused and continues to cause so much division, hatred, and strife?

How do you define religion? Religion is "a worldview that requires faith of some sort in something or someone to bridge the gaps in human knowledge of the spiritual realm" No one religion claims to have all the answers, but what makes atheism not a religion? Do you "believe" there is no God? the very word believe implies that it is a belief, but atheists won't say that the believe in any deity. Atheism requires just as much faith as other religions, but they want to be exempt from the fact that their "beliefs" aren't a "religion". Do you believe there is no God? then we have a problem

I define religion as any belief system centralized on a deity, with doctrines, ceremonies, and traditions all centered on worship of that deity. ALL religions claim to have the "answer." There is no "gap in human knowledge," because there is no "spiritual realm." The only claims of a "spiritual realm" that have ever been made were made by humans. The "spiritual realm" is a human invention.

What makes atheism "not a religion" is the fact that it is not a religion. No deity, no religion. See how that works?

I am agnostic. I don't have a belief, one way or the other, about whether or not a gawd exists. I do believe that all those that man has ever invented are simply inventions. No gawd has ever made itself unquestionably known. It is only humans that claim knowledge of any gawd. Atheism does not require faith but, rather, is a complete LACK of faith. Further, if you are going to make atheism a religion, then I'm joining, and I want the same tax exemption that stinking religion receives.

You are right to an extent: atheism is not a religion.

No, I am right, completely: atheism is not a religion.

However, whenever it becomes the goal of atheists to eradicate religion (that is, they become "active" or "militant" atheists) they become capable of committing atrocities in the name of anti-religious beliefs in the same way that religious people have committed atrocities in the name of their religious beliefs.

The desire to eradicate ideas, because they are bad and destructive, does not require violence. The world would be a better place, if religious people recognized this. "Militant" atheists is a misnomer. Dictators like Pol Pott, Stalin, etc. are EXACTLY like the religions of the world that have committed the same atrocites. However, atheism was not their motivation. Neither did they use atheism as a stamp of vindication or justification, the way that the church has, in many cases, used the presumption of "divine authority." Atheism is not a motivating factor that breeds violence. Religion is.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

I personally don't think you owe people of religion courtesy of respect. Personally, my only quip would be anyone violating my personal religious rights in any way. Other than that, you can hold whatever opinion you want.

This is a response I can respect.

There's quite a bit of considerations to take. For one, Mayans and any other conquered peoples had a form of religion. So in any conquering scenario, either it's a case of an evil force conquering another evil force, or one religious group simply exploiting another. The latter case suggests that religion itself is not the problem, but a particular group exploiting religion. Religion, like science, is not a personality. I don't think you disrespect science just because some have placed a pygmy in a zoo, and aborigines in State Fairs in the name of science.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you, to a degree. The military force of the Spanish conquerors considered themselves to be in the service of gawd himself, via the church. The symbol of the cross was emblazonment on their weapons and armor. The very reason for the destruction of the Mayan culture's documentation was completely religious. It was RELIGIOUS belief that prompted the destruction of some of the most grievous destruction of knowledge and information ever lost... Did you know that the Mayans were actually using cement a couple of hundred years before the Romans? What gems were destroyed, because of ignorance spawned by religious dogma?

The initial introduction of Christianity to the outside world (from Israel) went basically 2 two directions. They went into both Europe and Asia. The first missionaries did not politically promote the Gospel message which does not promote political empiricism. In Europe Christianity eventually became a law. In Asia, it did not. The Gospel was presented, and either embraced or rejected. Today we know that there are enclaves of historical relatively small and peaceful Christian communities throughout Asia. So the Gospel/Bible message itself could not be a catalyst for danger.

Or, perhaps, Asian people are simply more inclined to peace... Christianity, itself, has a very violent beginning, and "the gospel" is not a message that, in and of itself, promotes war or peace. RELIGION and its tenacious faith-grip on the belief that deity X is the ultimate arbiter of truth, right, and reality is what engenders the violence and danger.

As far as Mayan culture being destroyed, yes that from my standpoint is a shame. Anything from history being destroyed is a shame, even more so when done on purpose. And this same thing has happened in anti-theistic societies like China. There is a lot of artifacts that have been destroyed because they were associated with religion. And I admit, although I'm not a Buddhist, Buddhist artifacts in Asian nations are absolutely spectacular.

Many artifacts the come from the far east are absolutely spectacular. In the case of the Mayans, however, it was christianity destroying a competing "faith" and believing it had divine sanction that was so sickening. In its profound ignorance, it made an equally profound claim of divine right and spiritual superiority. Such i

The church, historically in Asia (the enclaves I referred to) has not been violently destructive.

The church, historically in Asia (the enclaves I referred to) has not been violently destructive.

Again, the same "message" heard by two very different types of people will be embraced in two very different ways.

But I'm just not that clear as to what you are objecting to. Terms like "it acts a though" are not very clear terms.

People who espouse specific religious beliefs, in my experience, feel entitled to have others refrain from ridiculing said beliefs, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE those beliefs are religious. If anything is said in contrary, they are offended, and tempers flare, quickly.

Secondly, I don't think you're really being demanded to respect religion. As far as I'm concerned, along with most religious Americans, your level of respect is entirely your affair.

It is a demand, in the cultural taboo that is associated with speaking ill of religion... Religious people very much expect that their religion is not to be criticized or ridiculed, simply because it's faith. It's an expectation, put forth through cultural "norms." Yes, the religious do demand it.

Religion is not a personality, so it obviously can't feel. It would seem to me that you have more of a problem with individual personalities. Like someone(s) coming across as arrogant.

I'm referring to religious PEOPLE, and I'm sure you understood that. Religious people OFTEN come across as arrogant. That's not the point. It's the presumption of moral superiority that is expressed all too often by religious believers that I find disgusting.

When you take people on an individual basis, sentiment is going to vary just as it does with atheists (some demand removal of Christian artifacts, some don't, etc.). You might at times are going to be around someone who is going to ask you not to take the name of the Lord in vain when you're around them for instance. But many are not. Most Christians you run into on a daily basis, you probably don't even know they are Christians. That might vary depending on what region of the country you're in. Obviously if you visit the Amish country the dynamics will be different than if you're in Greenwich Village.

Religion is fluid and ever-changing. It's an human thing for it to be, and religions are definitely human...

However.......a line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because some atheists don't respect religion does not mean a particular religious statue has to come down in a given public location, a monumental cross in a historic site has to come down, a public school teacher has to refrain from wearing a Christian t-shirt at school etc., just because some atheists are offended.

I'm not asking to have religious icons taken down (though I would prefer it, personally). I can ignore something like that. I'm talking about attempting to dictate how I am and am not permitted to speak of religion, specifically BECAUSE it is religion.

I'm curious as to what, when, how this situation plays out. But this follows along the path of my earlier point that we're inevitably dealing with different personalities. How one religious person acts will differ from another, just like atheists.

But atheists do not attempt to tell other people HOW they OUGHT to live, based on faith. We don't try to limit other people's behaviors based on things that are asserted and claimed, without ANY evidence for existence. Religious people do.

Religion not being a personality is not telling us people who adhere to a religion anything.

The codified tenets and doctrines determine how people put forth their ideology. Like the fact that most christians believe homosexuals should not be allowed to marry...

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.